TRANSFORMING

TRANSPORTATION
IN NEW YORK
Roadmaps to a Transportation Climate Target for 2035

Prepared on behalf
of Sierra Club
September 2019
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

New York’s Clean Energy Leadership 3

New York’s progress so far 4

Where New York needs to go 5

Analysis Methodology 5

Modeling and Results 5

EV sales 8

EVs on the road 8

Medium– and heavy-duty EVs 9

Impacts of modeled policies 9

EVs and CO2 emissions 13

EVs and the electricity grid 13

EVS and public health 13

EVs and the economy 14

Discussion and Conclusions 14

Appendix 21
Executive Summary
To address the climate crisis, the State of New York has
set an ambitious goal to decarbonize its energy use. It
has established a mandate to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by at least 40% economy-wide by 2030
and achieve 100% net zero emissions by 2050. While the
state has made important strides in reducing GHGs, most
reductions to date have focused on the electric sector,
with far less attention paid to transportation. Yet the
transportation sector represents 36% of New York’s GHG
emissions, making it the largest emitting sector of the
economy, with motor vehicles accounting for over 80%
of those emissions (see Figure 1 and Table 1).1 If New
York is to succeed in reaching its ambitious emission
reduction requirements, it will need specific and bold
transportation-focused goals and policies.
This report shows that by adopting a goal of reducing
motor vehicle emissions 55% by 2035 from 1990 levels
and implementing a suite of familiar and achievable
policies, New York can ensure the transportation sector
is on track to meet economy-wide goals, improve public
health and the environment, retain billions of dollars in
the state’s economy, and promote an equitable
transportation sector transformation.
Figure 1. Energy-derived CO2 emissions in New York
225
Energy-derived CO2 Emissions
200
175
(million metric tons)
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1990 1995 2000
Note: This figure does not include GHG emissions aside from CO2. It also does not include out-of-state emissions associ-
ated with downstream production of goods, emissions from out-of-state power plants that produce electricity consumed
in New York, or non-energy emissions (e.g., from agricultural or land-use change).
Source: EIA State Carbon Dioxide Emissions Data. Available at https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
On behalf of the Sierra Club, Synapse Energy Economics
modeled three scenarios to evaluate the impacts of
incremental policies on vehicle electrification and GHG
reductions. We analyzed:
• A Business-as-Usual (BAU) future, illustrating the likely
impacts of today’s policies and expected technological
progress;
• A Electrification Only future, future, looking at a set of
policies that reduce motor vehicle GHG emissions by
55% by 2035 through increased vehicle electrification;
and
• An Electrification with Mode Shifting future,
examining a set of policies that reduce motor vehicle
GHG emissions by 55% by 2035 through a combination
of increased vehicle electrification and coordinated
policies that reduce reliance on driving by encouraging
public transit, walking, biking, telecommuting, and
mixed-use development.
We then modeled the public health and
economic benefits from the implementation of
these policies and the resulting decline in GHG
and co-pollutant emissions. Our analysis has six
major findings:
1. Business-as-Usual transportation sector GHG
emission reductions are inadequate. Although
transportation sector emissions are projected to
Electric Power
Residential,
Commercial, and
Industrial
Transportation:
Planes, boats, & trains
Transportation:
Motor Vehicles
2005 2010 2015
1
 decline between now and 2035, absent additional In this analysis, the term “EV” includes
policies, the rate of decline will be insufficient for New
both plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs)
York to meet its long-term climate obligations.
and full battery electric vehicles
2. GHG reductions of 55% by 2035 from motor vehicles (BEVs).
are achievable and will put New York on track to
achieve long-term climate commitments. New York
can put itself on track to achieve long-term climate research, 53% of all light-duty vehicles (LDVs) sold in
commitments by relying on electric vehicles (EVs) and New York in 2020 will still be on the road in 2035. In
policies that emphasize low-carbon transportation. By order to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2035, New
highlighting two potential pathways, we demonstrate York needs to implement policies that will quickly
that this level of reductions is not dependent on one increase the share of new vehicle purchases that are
sole suite of policies—it can be accomplished in EVs. Increasing sales of EVs in the near-term
multiple ways. Specifically, we find that policies that significantly impacts the EV share of the entire vehicle
reduce the upfront cost of EVs, like rebates, and fleet by 2035, which is what tailpipe emissions are
policies that put a price on pollution are particularly ultimately tied to (see Figure 2).
effective at spurring adoption of EVs and curbing CO2
emissions, particularly when coupled with policies that 4. Reducing GHGs from motor vehicles 55% from 1990
expand access to public EV charging infrastructure. levels by 2035 would provide significant economic
and public health co-benefits. Reducing
3. Acting quickly is critical to achieve substantial GHG transportation emissions in New York state saves lives,
reductions by the mid-2030s and put New York on a both from decreased exposure to health-damaging
trajectory for decarbonization by 2050. Due to long pollutants and from reduced motor vehicle injuries
vehicle lifetimes and low fleet turnover rates, and fatalities. It would also save $1.3 to $1.8 billion in
aggressive policies are needed imminently to reduce healthcare costs beyond business as usual, keep $30
GHG emissions in the next 15 years. According to our
Table 1. New York registered vehicles and CO2 emissions, 2018 estimate
Vehicle Count CO2 Emissions
# of million
% of % of
vehicles metric tons
All motor vehicles 10,580,000 - 56.5 100%
Light-duty vehicles (LDVs) 10,120,000 96% 46.1 82%
Medium-duty vehicles (MDVs) 250,000 2% 3.1 6%
Heavy-duty vehicles (HDV): Single 80,000 <1% 1.7 3%
Heavy-duty vehicles (HDV): Combination 40,000 <1% 3.7 7%
Buses 90,000 <1% 1.8 3%
Other vehicles (airplanes, boats, and trains) - - 17.3 -
All Transportation - - 73.8 -
Note: Light-duty vehicles are any vehicle that weighs less than 10,000 lbs, including SUVs, small and medium pickup
trucks, sedans, and other passenger cars. In this analysis, medium-duty vehicles are vehicles that weigh more than
10,000 lbs but less than 26,000 lbs. Heavy-duty vehicles are heavier than 26,000 lbs are and are subcategorized into
buses, “single” vehicles (e.g., dump trucks, flatbed trucks or any truck with “single” integrated cab and cargo compo-
nents), and “combination” vehicles (e.g., semi vehicles that have detachable cab and cargo components.
Sources: NYS DMV. Vehicle, Snowmobile, and Boat Registrations dataset. Available at http://www.dmv.ny.gov/
register.htm; EIA State Energy Data System. Available at https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/; Synapse’s EV-REDI Model.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 2

Figure 2. EVs as a share of LDV sales and total LDVs on the road (Electrification Only scenario)
to 31 billion of transportation fuel expenditures in-
state, and boost economic productivity by lowering
the number of work days lost.
5. Clean transportation policies must be equitable. This
includes distribution of both benefits (e.g., air quality
and mobility) and costs. For example, policymakers
can prioritize the electrification of vehicles that
produce the most health-damaging emissions,
especially since these vehicle types (such as buses and
short-haul trucks) disproportionately emit these
pollutants in neighborhoods that are largely composed
of low income residents and in communities of color.
Policymakers can also ensure that funds raised from
pollution fees are recirculated to low income
communities and communities of color in the forms of
improved public transportation, EV car-sharing, and
active transportation infrastructure, for example.
6. Supporting the move to electric vehicles is essential.
Achieving significant reductions will require rapid,
widespread transportation electrification. This will
necessitate support from state agencies,
municipalities, the private sector, and utilities. Support
for policies that encourage EVs over conventional
vehicles, such as strong rebates for EVs, result in the
build-out of publicly accessible charging infrastructure,
and promote less driving overall will be essential.
Furthermore, policies must ensure electrification
happens across all vehicle types, not just LDVs.
The following report describes our methodology and
findings.
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
New York’s Clean Energy Leadership
New York has recognized the importance of mitigating
the New York has recognized the importance of
mitigating the climate crisis, which threatens to extend
dangerous extreme heat waves, cause sea level rise and
storm surges that will eventually subsume coastal
communities, and increase health risks and deaths
resulting from worsening air quality and hotter
temperatures.2
In July 2019, Governor Cuomo signed the New York
Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
(CLCPA).3 Recognizing the urgency of reducing GHG
emissions to mitigate the threat of climate change, the
law requires New York to reduce emissions at least 40%
from 1990 levels economy-wide by 2030 and reach 100%
net zero by 2050.4 Important steps have been taken
already to ensure that electric sector emissions decline in
line with the targets. The CLCPA requires that renewable
resources account for 70% of electricity generation by
2030 and that electric sector emissions decline to zero by
2040.5 To help meet those ambitious targets, the law
requires the procurement of 9,000 MW of offshore wind
power, 6,000 MW of distributed solar, 3,000 MW of
battery storage, and investments in energy-saving
measures that will also reduce energy costs. For the
CLCPA’s mandate of 100% net zero GHG emissions by
2050, a minimum of 85% of reductions must come from
3
cutting emissions—the remaining 15% can come through
offsets. Some sectors of the economy will be more
difficult to decarbonize, such as air travel and industrial
processes, as the technologies for emissions reductions
in these categories are still in earlier stages. As noted
above, the transportation sector accounts for 36% of
New York’s emissions, with motor vehicles accounting for
76% of that. Given that the technology exists today to
reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, it is critical
for New York to implement policies in this sector that will
slow harmful climate change and meet state goals.
New York’s progress so far
Fortunately, New York has taken important first steps in
decreasing carbon pollution from the transportation
sector. For example, some progress has already been
made, or committed to, by New York’s regional transit
agencies. Given their fixed and relatively short routes,
transit buses are a great early application of EVs. MTA,
the New York City metropolitan area’s transit authority,
has set a target to transition to a zero-emissions fleet by
2040.6 Other regional transit authorities have also taken
steps to move toward zero emissions electric buses. For
example, Rochester’s Regional Transit Service is
purchasing six electric buses and plans to acquire more in
the future.7
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
New York has also taken steps to increase the number of
EV charging stations available in the state. Through the
EVolve NY program, the NY Power Authority has
committed to invest $250 million in EV infrastructure,
services, and awareness efforts to help build the
backbone of EV chargers in the state.8 NYSERDA’s Charge
Ready NY program helps organizations install charging
ports by providing a rebate of $4,000 per port.9 There is
also a $5,000 tax credit available for installing chargers at
commercial buildings and workplaces.10 New York
supports the purchase of EVs directly as well: As a
member of the ZEV states that follow California’s zero
emission vehicle regulation, New York requires that a
growing fraction of the vehicles sold by each auto
manufacturer be electric.11 On top of that, New York
currently provides consumers rebates of up to $2,000 for
the purchase of an EV.
In addition, New York City and other urban centers
already have extensive public transportation networks, as
well as many neighborhoods that provide access to
important services within walking and biking distance.
These features provide residents with many sustainable
transportation options and reduce the total distance that
residents need to travel. The upcoming implementation
of congestion pricing in New York City will more
accurately reflect the advantages of sustainable
transportation modes over polluting motor vehicles.
Other programs, such as Climate Smart Communities, can
play a large role in reducing emissions, and New York can
reduce the amount people have to drive through
Complete Street re-designs and by bolstering affordable
and accessible public transit. Even in parts of the state
that are more reliant on cars, including rural areas, higher
quality active and public transportation options
combined with investments in and expanded use of clean
electric vehicles could provide residents more choices at
lower costs.
Now the state must build on these policies by taking bold
and ambitious actions to reduce emissions from cars,
buses, and trucks and to meet economy-wide emissions
reduction targets.
4
Where New York needs to go
While the policies implemented to date will help cut into
New York’s transportation sector climate emissions, our
analysis of a business-as-usual future shows that they will
not move the needle far or fast enough to meet long-
term commitments. Consequently, New York must take
bigger, bolder, and more ambitious action to reduce
transportation-sector emissions through policies that
ensure such a transition is equitable. By implementing
policies at the scale needed to achieve 55% reductions by
2035, New York can build on this leadership and fulfill the
promise of being a national climate leader.

Policies that have been shown to accelerate

transportation electrification include those that reduce
the upfront price disparity, such as strong EV rebates,
rapidly expanding the fueling infrastructure for EVs, and
reflecting the true cost of internal combustion engines
through such things in increases in fuel prices. The
following sections explore the modeled effects of these
policies and their impacts on meeting New York’s 2035
target.
Analysis Methodology
We performed our analysis using two models: the Market
Acceptance of Advanced Automotive Technologies
(MA3T) model and the Electric Vehicle Regional
Emissions and Demand Impacts (EV-REDI) model. MA3T
is a consumer adoption model focusing on LDVs,
developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and most
recently updated in April 2019. We used it to assess the
annual impacts of technology changes and transportation
sector policies on the share of EVs relative to total LDVs
performed our analysis using two models: the Market
Acceptance of Advanced Automotive Technologies
(MA3T) model and the Electric Vehicle Regional
Emissions and Demand Impacts (EV-REDI) model. MA3T
is a consumer adoption model focusing on LDVs,
developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and most
recently updated in April 2019. We used it to assess the
annual impacts of technology changes and transportation
sector policies on the share of EVs relative to total LDVs.
Meanwhile, EV-REDI was developed by Synapse and
deployed in September 2018. EV-REDI is a stock turnover
and scenario analysis model. We took outputs from
MA3T in the form of EVs sold per year (as a share of total
LDVs sold) and evaluated them in EV-REDI to estimate
the number of EVs on the road, CO2 emissions,
reductions in gasoline and diesel consumption use, and
other outputs.
See this document’s appendix for more detail on the
analysis methodology and models used.
Modeling and Results
We used scenario analysis to examine the potential
impacts of changing incentives that impact vehicle
purchases and reduce total vehicle miles driven. We did
not investigate all potential scenarios or attempt to
identify the most likely scenarios—instead, we aimed to
understand the impact of a subset of known and
available EV policies on several possible futures. Table 2
describes in detail the policies assumed in each scenario.
At a high level, the modeled policies include: (a)
increasing the availability of public charging

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 5

infrastructure; (b) increasing EV rebates; (c) internalizing
the cost of pollution from ICEs; and (d) shifting
transportation modes to reduce VMTs. In addition to the
policies described in Table 2, we modeled the following
policies as the same across all scenarios:

• Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle efficiency:

In all scenarios, we assumed that ICE fuel efficiency
increases slowly after 2021. For example, passenger
car efficiency increases from about 34 MPG in 2021 to
37 MPG in 2035 and light truck efficiency increases
from 25 MPG in 2021 to 26 MPG in 2037. These
trajectories are based on the 2018 EIA Annual Energy
Outlook’s “No New Efficiency Requirements” case,
adjusted to match historical EPA fleet-average
efficiency data. Given uncertainty regarding clean car
standards at the federal level, we assumed a rollback
of standards, to ensure proposed EV policies could
achieve emissions reductions independent of federal
action.

• EV mandates: We compared preliminary results to

existing EV mandates, including New York’s ZEV
mandate. Rather than evaluating these policies as
inputs, we examined whether the number of EVs
produced by each modeled scenario met or exceeded
the mandated EV requirements from each policy. In
each scenario, the modeled policies resulted in a
number of EVs that exceeds the mandated number of
EVs under New York’s ZEV mandate. This does not
mean that the ZEV mandate is not important; rather it
means that by adopting the other state policies
reflected in the modeling, New York can advance
electrification and help insulate its carbon emission
reduction objectives even in the face of a federal
rollback of ZEV mandates.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 6

Table 2. Scenario descriptions and assumptions
Business-as-Usual
Description Models likely EV adoption
resulting from current
policies and expected
future technological
progress and cost declines
Public Held flat at present-day
charging levels (chargers are only
access 20% as convenient to access
as gas stations)
Rebates Current rebates: vehicles
with all-electric ranges of
>120 miles have a $2,000
rebate, while other vehicles
(e.g., PHEVs) have
progressively lower rebates
Pollution fees None
VMT VMT per vehicle remains
constant
BEVs vs. The fraction of new EVs that
PHEVs are full BEVs is 68% in 2020
and increases to 83% by
2035, in line with recent
national modeling by BNEF
MDVs & HDVs All vehicles follow
“medium” or “slow”
electrification trajectory
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
Electrification Only
Models a set of policies that
reduce motor vehicle emissions
55% by 2035 through rapid
electrification of motor vehicles
Public chargers are as
accessible as gas stations by
2027; number of gas stations
declines at the rate observed in
recent years
(1) Increases the $2,000 rebate
to $5,000 in 2020 and (2)
reduces the relative cost of EVs
as compared to ICEs by an
additional $500 per year in
2025 that ramps up to $3,000
in 2030
Additional gasoline fee of
$0.274/gallon beginning in
2022 and increasing by $0.05
each year between 2025 and
2030
VMT per vehicle remains
constant
Assumes fewer PHEVs are
produced relative to the BAU,
resulting in BEVs making up
93% of EV sales in 2035
Buses follow “fast” trajectory;
all other vehicles follow
“medium” or “slow”
electrification trajectory
Electrification
with Mode Shifting
Models a set of policies that
reduce motor vehicle GHG
emissions by 55% by 2035 by
shifting to more sustainable
modes of transportation
alongside electrification
Public chargers are as
accessible as gas stations by
2027; number of gas stations
declines at the rate observed in
recent years
(1) Increases the $2,000 rebate
to $3,800 in 2020 and (2)
reduces the relative cost of EVs
as compared to ICEs by an
additional $500 per year in
2025 that ramps up to $3,000
in 2030
Additional gasoline fee of
$0.274/gallon beginning in
2022 and increasing by $0.05
each year between 2025 and
2030
VMT per LDV reduced by 7.5%
total between 2020 and 2035.
VMT for non-LDVs remains the
same as in the BAU
Assumes fewer PHEVs are
produced relative to the BAU,
resulting in BEVs making up
93% of EV sales in 2035
Buses follow “fast” trajectory;
all other vehicles follow
“medium” or “slow”
electrification trajectory
7
EV sales Figure 3. EV sales a % of new vehicle sales,
LDVs only
Figure 3 shows how the EV share of all new cars is
projected to change through 2035. In the BAU projection, 100%
New York’s EV sales share increases rapidly 2018 to 2021 90% Electrification Only
while the federal tax credit is still in effect for many auto Electrification with
manufacturers.12 EV sales shares then hold flat through 80% Mode Shifting

EV sales as a % of new LDV sales

the early-2020s as the current tax credit phases out and
70%
as the upfront cost of purchasing an EV drops. Starting
around 2025, EV sales shares increase again as the 60% Business-as-Usual
upfront cost of many types of EVs falls below their ICE
50%
equivalent. Finally, growth in EV sales slows in the early
2030s and later years as EV technology matures and price 40%
declines slow. In 2035, EVs make up only 58% of all new
LDVs sold in New York in a BAU projection, lower than 30%
what is needed to reach emissions goals. 20%
In the Electrification Only scenario, increased rebates and 10%
other incentives result in higher levels of EV sales. EV
sales shares are between 20 and 30% for much of the 0%
early 2020s. By 2035, EVs make up 88% of all new LDVs 2020 2025 2030 2035
sold in New York. The Electrification with Mode Shifting
scenario features a similar, but lower trajectory because
Figure 4. EVs on the road, million LDVs
fewer EVs are needed to achieve the same CO2 reductions
by 2035. 6
EVs on the road
Electrification Only
5 Electrification with
Even if New York were to achieve a rapid adoption of EVs Mode Shifting
EVs on the road (million LDVs)

in terms of new vehicle purchases, low fleet turnover

means that it will take a long time until EVs comprise a 4
substantial amount of the overall LDV fleet (see Figure 4).
In other words, there is a long lag time between when
new vehicle sales are predominantly EVs and when the 3 Business-as-Usual
fleet of vehicles on the road is predominantly EVs.

For example, while one-third of all new LDVs sold in 2025 2

are EVs under the Electrification Only scenario, EVs
represent less than 10% of all LDVs on the road in that 1
same year. In that same scenario, EVs are almost 90% of
sales in 2035 and yet under 50% of all LDVs on the road in
2035 are electric. In the Electrification Only scenario, 0
there are projected to be 5.1 million LDV EVs on the road 2020 2025 2030 2035
in New York in 2035, compared to about 45,000 on the
Note: We estimate that there were about 10.1 million LDVs
road in 2018. on the road in 2018.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 8

Medium- and heavy-duty EVs Figure 5. EV sales a % of new vehicle sales,
MDVs and HDVs
We also estimated adoption trajectories of medium-duty
vehicles (MDVs) and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) to 100%
determine the total reduction in motor vehicle CO2
90%

EV sales as a % of new MDV and HDV sales

emissions. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show new EV sales and
total EVs on the road in the MDV and HDV segment, 80%
respectively.
70%
MDVs and HDVs include many different types of vehicles,
60% Electrification Only
and thus have a less smooth adoption curve. Some types Electrification with
of vehicles (such as transit and school buses) electrify 50% Mode Shifting
rapidly and others (such as long-haul freight trucks) take
much longer. In both the Electrification Only and 40%
Electrification with Mode Shifting scenarios, all buses are 30% Business-as-Usual
electric by 2040, in line with MTA’s goals and suggesting a
policy that follows California’s requirement to transition 20%
to zero-emissions buses by 2040. See this document’s
10%
appendix for information on how non-LDV sales
trajectories were developed. 0%
2020 2025 2030 2035
Impacts of modeled policies
The increase in EVs we see in the Electrification Only and
Figure 6. EVs on the road, thousand MDVs and HDVs
Electrification with Mode Shifting scenarios is a result of a
combination of modeled policies, but not all policies have 180
equal-sized impacts. To compare the effects of individual
policies, we ran sensitivity scenarios in which only one 160
EVs on the road (thousand MDVs and HDVs)

Electrification Only
policy was added to the BAU scenario at a time. We then Electrification with
analyzed the change in EV sales in 2035 between the BAU 140 Mode Shifting
scenario and the sensitivity scenarios, comparing the
120
observed difference to the total change in 2035 EV sales
observed between the BAU and Electrification Only 100
scenarios.13
80
We find from this sensitivity analysis that measures to
reduce the upfront cost of EVs relative to ICE vehicles 60 Business-as-Usual
(such as rebates) have the largest effect on EV sales. For
example, we estimate that this type of policy alone 40
achieves 86% of the total increase EV sales between the
BAU and Electrification Only scenarios. Lowering the 20
relative upfront cost of EVs compared to ICE vehicles will
0
be critical to accelerate the adoption of EVs. 2020 2025 2030 2035
Pollution fees on gasoline (including those linked to the Note: Unlike Figure 4 (see previous page), values in this
regional Transportation and Climate Initiative), also help figure are presented in thousands rather than millions for
purposes of readability. We estimate that there were about
420,000 MDVs and HDVs on the road in 2018.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 9

to strengthen the economics of purchasing an EV by which is not modeled in this analysis, could also help fill
increasing the operational savings over the lifetime of the gaps in Level 2 charging access and enable long trips that
vehicle.14 On its own, the pollution fee modeled in this require quick recharging on the road.
analysis would achieve 23% of the increase in EV sales
seen between the BAU and Electrification Only scenarios. Other policies can play important roles, even if they have
In addition to having a substantial impact on EV sales, not been quantified in this study. Policies that increase
pollution fees raise revenue to fund other policies, such as awareness of EVs will be particularly important in the
rebates for EVs or increased funding for public transit. By coming years while EV adoption remains concentrated
raising the cost of polluting and providing essential among early adopters. For example, informational events
revenue to fund sustainable transportation options, where interested consumers can talk to current EV
pollution fees achieve multiple important policy owners and learn about available electric models can help
objectives at once. answer people’s questions and concerns, while correcting
misinformation. Similarly, policies that help to train car
Access to convenient charging is a prerequisite to EV dealerships on the strengths of EVs could result in more
adoption for most car buyers. While increased access to consumers choosing an EV when it is time to purchase
public Level 2 charging (in the MA3T model, public their next vehicle.
charging does not include workplace, home, or curbside
charging) by itself yields only a modest 7% increase in EV
sales between the BAU and Electrification Only scenarios,
an absence of public chargers can significantly hamper
efforts to promote vehicle electrification. Significantly,
our analysis of charging infrastructure buildout is limited
to Level 2 chargers in public spaces. It does not include DC
fast chargers, which play an important role in overcoming
“range anxiety,” or home or workplace chargers.
Increasing access to Level 2 charging at homes and
workplaces, in addition to public locations, can reduce
and reverse the existing ICE vehicle advantage in refueling
convenience and also help to decrease range anxiety.

To understand the potential impact of larger scale

charging infrastructure investments, we analyzed an
additional sensitivity scenario in which by 2035 all drivers
have access to Level 2 charging at home, even those
without driveways or other off-street parking. This level of
charging infrastructure results in an increase in EV sales of
56% of the total increase observed between the BAU and
Electrification Only scenarios. While there are significant
obstacles to charging at home for many drivers,
particularly in large urban areas like New York City, the
sensitivity illustrates that enabling charging at or close to
all homes, including multi-family dwellings, would be
critical to facilitating EV ownership for many New Yorkers.
Additionally, ensuring a rapid buildout of DC fast charging,

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 10

Table 3. Policies to decrease VMT

Providing transportation choices Discouraging unsustainable motor vehicle travel

Mixed-use and transit-oriented zoning is essential
to enable walking, biking, and public transit. Mixed-
use buildings in concentrated areas reduce the dis-
tances between residents and the jobs and services
they rely on, which makes walking and biking more
feasible. Zoning for transit-oriented development
while maintaining affordability gives more people
convenient access to transit and makes more of the
places they need to go accessible by transit.
Congestion pricing and VMT fees charge drivers for
some of the congestion, infrastructure, and land use
costs they impose. Congestion pricing focuses on
reducing traffic in city centers, thus opening up road
space for public and active forms of transportation.
VMT fees assign infrastructure maintenance costs to
drivers, usually proportionally to the degree to
which each driver is using roadways. Both policies
encourage more efficient transportation modes.

Public and active transportation infrastructure in-
cludes pedestrian paths and sidewalks, bike paths
and lanes, bus rapid transit routes, and rail infra-
structure. These investments make public and active
transportation feasible and convenient and allow
people to choose the transportation modes that
work best for them.
Road diets reduce the reliance on motor vehicles by
adjusting streets to match their surroundings. Roads
through populated areas that have too many lanes
or high-speed limits are dangerous, unsustainable,
and harmful to quality of life.15 Creating streets that
consider the needs of all roadway users can encour-
age drivers to consider other modes instead.

Maintaining fare affordability is critical to making
transit accessible to everyone. Lower fares also re-
ward transit riders for the benefits they provide to
the entire transportation system by occupying less
space on roadways, improving transportation safety,
and reducing energy use and pollution.
Reducing parking requirements frees up more
space for people. Vehicles take up valuable space—
parking mandates subsidize this cost by artificially
increasing the supply of parking. Requirements for
extensive parking also raise development costs, cre-
ate sprawl that makes walking and biking more diffi-
cult, and favor motor vehicle travel over public
transportation.

Potential for VMT reductions

Reducing the number of miles driven in motor vehicles is a significant challenge. Driving habits depend on many fac-
tors, including land use patterns that evolve slowly and individual preferences that can be difficult to change. The
Electrification with Mode Shifting scenario assumes that a comprehensive set of policies can achieve a 5% reduction
in light-duty VMT each decade (totaling 7.5% by 2035) relative to a BAU future. This aligns with possible VMT reduc-
tion estimates from several studies (see appendix). We assumed this reduction bearing in mind that our scenario
looks at VMT reductions state-wide, while reductions associated with one specific policy tend to reflect changes in
more localized areas.

Changing land use patterns and supply of alternative transportation modes can change the relative convenience of
driving, walking, biking, and taking transit. To accomplish this, New York can implement two categories of policies:
those that provide more transportation options and those that create disincentives for driving by charging vehicles
for the costs they impose on society. Some policies that can be implemented to provide convenient, affordable, and
sustainable alternatives to driving are described above in Table 3. See this document’s appendix for more detail on
VMT reduction potential.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 11

Policies to improve charging infrastructure

To rapidly increase the adoption of EVs, it is essential to support the buildout of public charging infrastructure. Con-
sumers will be more likely to choose EVs if they know that charging will be easy and convenient, regardless of
whether they are driving locally or for longer distances.16 In both the Electrification Only and Electrification with
Mode Shifting scenarios, we projected that public chargers are as accessible as gas stations by 2027 and that the
number of gas stations declines at the rate observed in recent years. This assumption represents a destination, but
not the policies needed to get there. There are a variety of tools for New York to expand upon and complement to
make this level of convenience a reality across the state.

New York has already put some policies in place to encourage the deployment of EV charging infrastructure, includ-
ing rebates and tax credits for public and workplace charging stations. Furthermore, the state is spending $19.2 mil-
lion from the VW diesel settlement on charging infrastructure for LDVs. Additional policies can accelerate the deploy-
ment of EV charging infrastructure even faster

One important component of the EV charging network will be DC fast chargers, which can help EV charging compete
with refueling an ICE vehicle at a gas station. They can also serve drivers on long trips or who have limited access to
charging at homes or workplaces. Some of the popular EVs available today can restore up to 160-197 miles each
hour, but new DC fast chargers can deliver the same amount of driving range in just ten or twenty minutes. 17 New
York can invest funding in the next generation of ultra-fast DC chargers, particularly in underserved communities
where the market has failed to provide adequate charging access.

As New York expands the availability of fast charging stations as well as standard plugs and level 2 chargers at work-
places, multi-unit dwellings, and other destinations, utilities can help fill in where the market has been lacking. In the
near term, electric companies can help build out infrastructure to reduce range anxiety, encourage more drivers to
go electric, and utilize existing electric grid infrastructure to provide more electricity. By spreading fixed grid costs
over more energy sold, these utility investments can bring down costs for all customers.

Utilities can also accelerate EV deployment with rate designs that both lower the costs EV drivers pay for charging
and the costs that charging imposes on the grid. Time-of-use (TOU) rates, which charge different amounts for elec-
tricity at different times of the day, can help save EV drivers money by encouraging them to charge their EVs at low
cost hours, when it is easier and more efficient for the grid to serve this vehicle charging load. Public charging sta-
tions offer an additional opportunity for utilities to design rates that encourage EV adoption. High demand charges,
which charge customers based on the maximum amount of electricity used at any moment over the course of the
month, can be very expensive for charging stations that are only occasionally used in the near term (while EV sales
are still relatively low). Instead, utilities can develop rates that depend on the amount of energy these stations con-
sume and the hours during which the energy is consumed.

New York State and the Public Service Commission should direct the utilities to take faster, smarter, and more signifi-
cant action to facilitate the transition to an electrified transportation system. Such policies could include load-
balancing, battery storage, vehicle-to-grid programs, as well as programs that incentivize EVs, renewables, and
smart grid improvements.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 12

EVs and CO2 emissions
Increasing the number of EVs on the road reduces tailpipe
emissions from motor vehicles (see Figure 7). Even in the
BAU scenario, tailpipe CO2 emissions are reduced by 38%
in 2035, relative to 1990 levels. This reduction is a result
of anticipated improvements and cost reductions in EV
technology, improvements in ICE efficiency, and current
New York policies that drive EV adoption. The
Electrification Only and Electrification with Mode Shifting
scenarios result in greater emissions reductions, with
both scenarios reducing CO2 emissions by nearly 20% in
2025 and 55% in 2035. Further out in the study period,
both policy scenarios reduce CO2 emissions from motor
vehicle tailpipes by approximately 90% by 2050. Under
the BAU, emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes decline
by just 67% by 2050. In order to achieve 100% net zero
emissions by 2050 economy-wide, motor vehicles will
likely need to get as close to 100% direct reductions as
possible, given the technological barriers to decarbonizing
other sectors.
Figure 7. Motor vehicle CO2 emissions
60
50
CO2 Emissions (MMTCO2)
40
30
55% below
1990
20 Business-as-Usual
Electrification with
10
Mode Shifting
Electrification Only
0 -related emergency visits in the state were higher than
2020 2030 2040 2050
Note: This figure includes tailpipe emissions from all motor
vehicles, including LDVs, MDVs, HDVs, and buses. It does
not include CO2 emissions that may result from charging.
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
EVs and the electricity grid
Under each projected scenario, EVs are expected to
require a substantial amount of electricity, although not
for several years. For example, by 2025, we project an
increase in wholesale electricity consumption of 6.1 TWh
in the Electrification Only scenario. Per the energy
forecast in NYISO’s 2019 Gold Book, this represents a 4%
increase in electricity consumption by 2025.18 For
comparison, NYISO estimated that historical electricity
consumption changed 3% between 2017 and 2018. By
2035, the Electrification Only scenario projects an
increase of nearly 30 TWh of electricity, or about a 17%
increase over what NYISO projects for 2035.
Importantly, if New York fulfills the requirements set out
in the CLCPA to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity
by 2040, the additional demand for electricity from EVs
will not result in incremental CO2 emissions from the
electric sector in the long term.
EVs and public health
As EVs proliferate, they avoid not only emissions of CO2,
but also other pollutants dangerous to human health.
More than 12.5 million New Yorkers (64% of the state’s
population) live in counties designated as failing to meet
health-based ambient air quality standards for smog.19
The transportation sector is responsible for over 55% of
total national emissions of nitrogen oxides, a primary
smog precursor.20
Using Synapse’s EV-REDI model, we estimated reductions
of criteria pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and particulate matter) resulting from decreased
combustion of gasoline and diesel. Exposure to these
pollutants results in increased asthma rates, respiratory
illnesses, cardiovascular ailments, lost work days, and
premature death. According to the most recent report
from the New York State Department of Public Health,
asthma rates for all age groups are on the rise and asthma
the national average.21
13
Using U.S. EPA’s COBRA model, we can estimate avoided
health incidences and associated monetized benefits.22
Over the entire study period of 2020 to 2035, we estimate
that the increased number of EVs in the Electrification
Only scenario (relative to the BAU) will cumulatively avoid
128 premature deaths, eliminate 73,800 work loss days,
and result in monetized health benefits of $1.3 billion (see
Table 4).
Table 4. Cumulative statewide health benefits,
2020 to 2035, relative to the BAU scenario
Electrification
Electrification
with Mode
Only
Shifting
Monetized
$1.3 billion $1.8 billion
health benefits
Avoided lost
73,800 102,400
work days
Premature
128 178
deaths avoided
Note: “Monetized health benefits” include direct medical
and societal costs associated with premature deaths,
avoided lost work days, and improved public health, pre-
sented in 2018 dollars.
Meanwhile, the Electrification with Mode Shifting
scenario will avoid a cumulative 178 premature deaths
and 102,400 work loss days, and produce cumulative
health benefits valued at $1.8 billion as a result of both EV
deployment and reduced VMT. This only includes health
benefits linked to reductions in air pollution—it does not
include reductions in deaths and injuries related to motor
vehicle collisions. The benefits are larger in the
Electrification with Mode Shifting scenario because the
VMT reduction is applied to all vehicles across the existing
fleet of vehicles on the road and therefore helps to
reduce emissions from older vehicles, which are the worst
polluters.
In addition, the numbers described here only quantify the
public health benefits achieved as a result of the
decreased emissions in each policy scenario relative to
the BAU; in all scenarios, we observe a large amount of
pollutant reductions caused by older, dirty vehicles
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
coming off the road. As these vehicles are retired in favor
of newer, cleaner vehicles (EVs or otherwise), pollution of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter will
be reduced.
EVs and the economy
Transitioning away fossil fuel dependence for
transportation will provide a boost to New York’s
economy. In 2017, New York was sixth in the nation in
terms of total petroleum consumption, with 80% of these
fuels (totaling 202 billion barrels of gasoline, diesel, and
other fuels) burned in the transportation sector.23
Virtually all of this petroleum was extracted and refined
outside of New York, with expenditures totaling $20
billion in 2017. Between 2020 and 2035, we estimate that
the Electrification Only scenario will cumulatively reduce
expenditures on out-of-state gasoline and diesel by $30
billion, relative to the BAU scenario. Likewise, we
estimate the Electrification with Mode Shifting scenario to
reduce cumulative expenditures on fossil fuels by $31
billion, relative to the BAU scenario.24
As New York moves to a 100% renewable electric grid, the
majority of this power will come from in-state renewables
like wind and solar. Thus, electrifying transportation
would allow the state to shift energy expenditures away
from out-of-state purchases of oil to in-state purchases of
locally-generated electricity and keep this money in the
New York economy.
Discussion and Conclusions
Reducing motor vehicle GHG emissions 55% by 2035 is
achievable, but it will require fast, strategic, and bold
action by the state. At stake are the health and wellness
of millions of New Yorkers, billions of dollars in potential
fuel and health savings, and the ability of New York to
avert catastrophic climate change. The results of our
analysis make it clear that immediate action is needed to
electrify a wide array of different vehicle types. Only such
action will keep New York on track to decarbonize by
2050. This transition should ensure that the benefits of
electrification are shared equitably by all of New York’s
residents.
14
Business-as-Usual transportation sector GHG
reductions are inadequate
Our BAU projection shows transportation sector emissions
declining through 2050 as a result of existing policies and
projected technological advancement, but this alone will
not be sufficient to ensure New York is on track to achieve
100% net zero emissions by 2050. Given the slow rate of
vehicle turnover, it is important to quickly identify a
trajectory that can get New York on track to successfully
achieve its climate commitments. As discussed below, an
interim reduction target of 55% by 2035 for motor
vehicles can help ensure that New York is on target with
its long-term goals.
Reducing emissions 55% by 2035 is possible and
puts New York on track to meet long-term climate
commitments
Achieving substantial GHG reductions over the next 15
years is essential for New York to both meet the mandate
under CLCPA and help avoid catastrophic climate change.
Our modeling shows that by expanding policies that are in
place today, New York can reduce GHG emissions from
motor vehicles by 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2035
and put the state on track to achieve its long-term targets.
In addition, our analysis indicates that multiple suites of
policies can achieve the 2035 goal. This includes policies
that aggressively promote EVs, such as rebates, pollution
fees, and charging infrastructure, as well as those that
reduce VMT.
Acting fast is critical to achieving long-term GHG
reductions
Internal combustion engine vehicles sold today will be on
the road and emit climate-warming emissions for 15 to 20
years, or more. Our research indicates that 53% of all
LDVs sold in New York in 2020 will still be on the road in
2035 and that nearly 20% of these vehicles will be on the
road in 2040.25 At the same time, increasing the market
share of EVs will take time, in large part because of the
higher upfront costs of these vehicles today. In order to
reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2035, New York will
need to invest in aggressive policies to overcome this cost
barrier, such as easing the phase-out of the $7,500 federal
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
Emissions from other vehicles
Non-motor vehicles create another major obstacle to
the decarbonization of the transportation sector.
These vehicles include airplanes, boats, and trains. In
recent years, they have represented about one-
quarter of all transportation sector emissions. Of this
non-motor vehicle fraction, airplanes make up the
lion’s share of emissions in New York—75 to 80% in
recent years. As domestic and international air travel
increases, airplanes are projected to account for 85%
of non-motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2035. Cur-
rently, there are few commercially viable technologies
to decarbonize airplanes, outside of mode-shifting to
other forms of transportation (e.g., Amtrak). In order
to achieve higher levels of economy-wide emission
reductions, more investment will be needed to devel-
op low-carbon alternatives that move people across
long distances.
tax credit for EVs and widening the ongoing savings
associated with EV operation (e.g., fueling and
maintenance savings). New York should also double-down
on policies that help EVs compete with more mature ICE
infrastructure by improving charging availability and
reducing range anxiety among potential EV adopters who
are unfamiliar with the technology’s real or perceived
limitations.
Furthermore, New York can expand on policies that put a
price on CO2, such as through traditional gasoline taxes,
participation in the regional Transportation and Climate
Initiative (TCI), other carbon pricing mechanisms, or
programs like New York City’s proposed congestion
pricing. Swift deployment of these types of programs can
help simultaneously raise revenue for policies such as EV
rebates and disincentivize reliance on fossil fuel-powered
vehicles.
Reducing motor vehicle emissions 55% by 2030 can
produce economic and public health benefits
Aggressively reducing emissions from motor vehicle
transportation in New York State will have co-benefits
beyond climate change mitigation. Burning fossil fuels in
15
motor vehicle transportation produces health-damaging
tailpipe pollutants, leading to lost work days, illness, and
death and costing billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
New Yorkers spend $20 billion each year on gasoline and
diesel to power their vehicles, virtually all of which is
produced and refined outside of the state. Electric
vehicles avoid these devastating health impacts, with the
aggressive policies modeled here producing $1.3 to $1.8
billion in public health benefits. These same policies can
shift the flow of transportation dollars from out-of-state
oil to in-state renewable energy and in-state jobs, and can
reduce gasoline and diesel expenditures of $30 billion or
more from 2020 to 2035.
Clean transportation policies must be equitable
As New York moves to decarbonize its transportation
sector, impacts on low income communities and
communities of color should be carefully considered to
ensure that the transition is made equitably for all
residents.
First, policymakers can make the electrification of vehicles
that emit criteria pollutants a priority in low income
communities and communities of color that are
disproportionately burdened by air pollution. A 2019
analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled
Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles found
that New Yorkers who identify as Asian American, Latino,
African American, or “other race” (not white) are exposed
to 28 to 47% more particulate matter pollution from cars,
trucks, and buses than white New Yorkers.26 Exposure to
particulate matter often increases asthma rates,
respiratory ailments, cardiovascular issues, and even
premature death. Other studies have found that children,
and in particular poor children, bear the brunt of diseases
linked to burning fossil fuels.27 Low-income New Yorkers
and communities of color are disproportionately likely to
be exposed to these pollutants as a result of living in close
proximity to major transit corridors, such as congested
highways, trucking roads, and bus routes. By focusing on
the electrification of vehicles using these roads (such as
short-haul trucks and transit buses), New York can
prioritize reducing the emission of criteria pollutants in
areas where they have been historically prevalent.
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
How much do fees on gasoline cost drivers?
Today, many EVs may have a higher upfront cost than
a comparable ICE vehicle. However, EVs are typically
less costly to fuel than comparable ICE vehicles. For
example, we estimate that a new passenger ICE vehi-
cle purchased in New York in 2018 would require about
$90 per month in gasoline expenditures while a com-
parable EV would cost about $50 per month in electric-
ity purchases. In our Electrification Only scenario, we
estimate that in 2035 a new ICE passenger car would
require about $115 of gasoline per month. Meanwhile,
the electricity to charge a comparable new EV would
cost just $45 per month.
In both policy cases, we assume new fees on polluters
are established to incentivize a shift toward cleaner
vehicles. These fees, totaling about $14 per month per
ICE vehicle by 2035, could be part of any number of
mechanisms. Here, they are modeled in part based on
estimates from modeling New York’s participation in
the TCI. Funds raised from these incremental fees
could accelerate the clean energy transition by sup-
porting EV rebates or “Cash for Clunkers” programs,
construction of charging stations, or improving bicycle,
pedestrian, and public transit infrastructure.
Second, revenue from pollution fees can be used to
improve transportation equity for disadvantaged
communities. Large and sudden increases to pollution
fees could hurt those with an older, inefficient vehicle and
limited means to purchase a new, cleaner EV. Revenue
from these fees could fund improved transit service and
infrastructure, construction of charging infrastructure in
disadvantaged communities, construction of affordable
housing in walkable and transit-oriented locations, or
subsidized electric car-sharing access to supplement
transit for low-income households. In addition, policies
like California’s Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program
(EFMP)—a scrap-and-replace program similar to the
federal “Cash For Clunkers” program—provide increasing
rebates for lower-income drivers and remove the dirtiest
vehicles from the road earlier than they might otherwise
16
retire.28 Such programs may be especially important for
New York’s rural communities, where low-carbon
transportation alternatives may be more costly or face
political obstacles.
Furthermore, care should be taken to ensure that policies
targeting land use and public transportation are designed
with an equity lens. While expanded mass transit,
improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and
transit-oriented development reduce CO2 emissions and
improve livability, without safeguards they may gentrify
communities and displace lower-income residents. As
policies are deployed to encourage low-carbon
transportation, policymakers may also need to implement
parallel policies for affordable housing and rent
stabilization to ensure access to livable communities.
Under the CLCPA, disadvantaged communities are
required to receive 35-40% or more of the overall benefits
of spending on projects or investments, including
transportation projects. Policy decisions, including those
determining where CLCPA-related projects will be
implemented, should be made by engaging residents early
and often to identify priorities and shape plans. The CLCPA
also requires that New York create a new “community air
monitoring program” that will track progress on
diminishing local air pollution. Under this program, the
Climate Justice Working Group established by the CLCPA
must identify high-risk communities, monitor air quality in
these communities for exposure to pollutants from
transportation and other sources, and create and
implement strategies to improve air quality. These
programs can help ensure that policies aimed at achieving
significant reductions in emissions are also producing co-
benefits for health and equity.
Moving toward EVs is essential
Moving toward EVs is essential, even if New York pursues
policies to reduce the total amount of miles driven in the
state. Policies that reduce VMT by 5% each decade can
reduce the need for 360,000 electric LDVs, as compared
to a scenario where those same VMT reductions are not
realized. However, even in the Electrification with Mode
Shifting scenario, to be on track to reduce emissions 55%
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
Other potential policy levers
This report highlights several policy levers available to
New York, but the set of policies analyzed here is by
no means exhaustive. We have modeled our two sce-
narios based on expansions of policies that are already
in use or under design in the state. Instead of imple-
menting this specific policy portfolio, New York could
choose a combination of these with other similarly or
more aggressive and comprehensive policies. Several
other alternatives could include:
ICE vehicle or all-vehicle exclusion zones
(highway lanes, city and town centers, etc.): Ex-
clusion zones can reduce the local air pollution in popu-
lated urban environments, where pollution impacts the
largest numbers of people. These zones have the add-
ed benefit of encouraging EVs (or active transporta-
tion) by allowing them to travel in a wider range of
locations. In some situations, such zones could be cre-
ated through the use of congestion pricing or HOV lane
access for EVs.
Incentives to retire dirty vehicles early: Another
category of programs aims to take the oldest and dirti-
est vehicles off the road. These “scrap-and-replace”
policies, such as the federal Cash for Clunkers program
or California’s Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program
(EFMP), pay drivers to scrap their old and inefficient
vehicles.
Reduced tolls for EVs: Reducing fees for EVs makes
owning an EV more useful and less costly. Policies
could include reducing tolls or registration fees for EVs.
by 2035, two million more electric LDVs must be on the
road in 2035 than in the BAU. To reach that number, New
York will need aggressive policies to promote EV adoption,
because there will still likely be too much driving in 2035
to ignore the need for a near-total electrification of new
vehicle sales.
Moreover, New York needs to electrify beyond LDVs.
Today, 20% of motor vehicle CO2 emissions in New York
come from MDVs, HDVs, or buses. With the exceptions of
17
buses and urban delivery vans, electrification of these y=Y&Actions=Y&Text=Y.
vehicle categories has been largely unexplored. While 4 Under the CLCPA, the state must reduce economy-wide
some of the vehicles in this category would be emissions by 85% by 2050. The remaining 15% of emissions
challenging to decarbonize with today’s EV technology, can either be directly reduced or offset through other
others are prime candidates for electrification. This mechanisms that remove greenhouse gases from the
includes delivery and municipal trucks that have regular, atmosphere.
predictable routes and can benefit from the substantial
torque provided by electric motors. Furthermore, half of 5 See https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/
New York’s buses, 31% of its heavy-duty single vehicles, s6599.
and 13% of its MDVs are municipally owned. This 6 Comments from Andy Byford at April 25, 2018 MTA
presents an opportunity for state and municipal Board Meeting, available at https://www.youtube.com/
governments to achieve vehicle electrification via watch?v=3u2Z35Awh84, at 1:17:00. Also see MTA Bus Plan.
procurements and mandates. April 2018. Available at http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/
bus_plan/bus_plan.pdf.
Conclusions
7 See Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation
Our analysis finds that by decreasing motor vehicle Authority Board of Commissioners Quarterly Meeting
emissions by 55% in 2035 and by enacting a suite of Minutes, December 2018: https://www.myrts.com/
familiar and implementable policies, New York can Portals/0/Documents/Board/Board%20Meeting%
ensure its transportation sector is on track to meet
economy-wide GHG reduction goals. Putting these
policies in place will improve public health and the
environment, retain billions of dollars in the state’s
economy, and promote an equitable transformation of
the state’s transportation sector. In order to achieve the
rapid GHG emission reductions needed to meet a 55% by
2035 goal, New York cannot delay in adopting policies
that will encourage EV adoption and decrease reliance on
personal vehicles. By reducing the upfront costs and
widening ongoing cost savings of EVs relative to ICE
vehicles, eliminating range anxiety by facilitating
deployment of public charging infrastructure, expanding
transportation options, and implementing pricing
mechanisms that reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, New
York can lead the charge to clean up America’s
transportation sector.

Endnotes
1 See https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/EDPPP/
Energy-Prices/Energy-Statistics/greenhouse-gas-
inventory.pdf.

2 See https://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/94702.html.

3 See https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?
default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A08429&term=2019&Summar

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 18

20Minutes/December%202018%20Quarterly%20Board%
20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf?ver=2019-01-16-132026-617.
8 See https://www.nypa.gov/innovation/programs/
evolveny.
9 More information about the Charge Ready NY program is
available at https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/
Programs/ChargeNY/Charge-Electric/Charging-Station-
Programs/Charge-Ready-NY.
10 See https://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/credits/
alt_fuels_elec_vehicles.htm.
11 The Clean Air Act allows California to set its own
“standards relating to control of emissions from new motor
vehicles” that differ from those of the federal government,
and Section 177 allows other states to follow California’s
regulations. More information about the ZEV regulation is
available on the California Air Resources Board’s website at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-
vehicle-program/about. The text of the Clean Air Act is
available on the EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/clean
-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-i-air-pollution-prevention
-and-control-parts-through-d#id.
12 Our nationwide business-as-usual projections of the EV
share of sales for LDVs are largely consistent with recent
projections from other organizations, including BNEF
(https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/) and DNV
GL (https://eto.dnvgl.com/2018/), through the early 2030s.
Because New York is among the states with more advanced
levels of EV sales and EV policies today, it typically sees levels
of EV sales that are higher than the national average.
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
13 The percentages described in these sensitivities vary in
each year. In addition, they do not sum to 100% as these
policies can have overlapping effect when it comes to lifetime
vehicle cost and vehicle desirability.
14 The Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) is a
regional effort of 12 states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
states to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation
sector. See https://www.transportationandclimate.org/ for
more information.
15 The Federal Highway Administration’s describes road
diets at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/.
16 The ZEV Task Force’s Multi-State ZEV Action Plan 2018-
2021 discusses the need for charging opportunities at “home,
work, around town, at destination locations and on the
road.” See https://www.nescaum.org/topics/zero-emission-
vehicles for more information.
17 These values correspond to the Nissan Leaf (160 miles of
range per 50 kWh) and Tesla Model 3 (197 miles of range per
50 kWh.) The Chevrolet Bolt EV falls between these vehicles
at 177 miles of range per 50 kWh. Data is from the EPA and
can be found at https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?
action=sbs&id=41416&id=40520&id=40812&id=41276.
18 See https://www.nyiso.com/
documents/20142/2226333/2019-Gold-Book-Final-
Public.pdf/a3e8d99f-7164-2b24-e81d-b2c245f67904?
t=1556215322968, Table I-1b.
19 Current data on counties in nonattainment under the
2015 ozone NAAQS can be found at https://www3.epa.gov/
airquality/greenbook/jbcs.html#NY; population values
calculated using 2018 population estimates from https://
data.ny.gov/Government-Finance/Annual-Population-
Estimates-for-New-York-State-and/krt9-ym2k/data.
20 Environmental Protection Agency, “Smog, Soot, and
Other Air Pollution from Transportation”, 2014, https://
www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-
change/smog-soot-and-local-air-pollution.
21 New York State, “Asthma Surveillance Summary Report”,
p. 31-32, Oct. 2013, https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/
ny_asthma/
pdf/2013_asthma_surveillance_summary_report.pdf.
22 U.S. EPA’s CO-Benefits Risk Assessment Health Impacts
19
Screening and Mapping Tool (COBRA) examines changes in
criteria pollutant emissions by sector, estimates air
dispersion and demographic data, and returns values in
terms of incidence rates of health impacts as well as
monetized benefits (e.g., direct medical and societal costs
associated with these health impacts). Health benefits are
calculated for the nation as a whole. See https://
www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/co-benefits-risk-assessment
-cobra-health-impacts-screening-and-mapping-tool for
more information.
23 See https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/.
24 These avoided fuel expenditures are calculated based on
the projection of regionally specific gasoline and diesel
prices in the 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), and do not
take into account changes to prices that may occur with
falling demand, or avoided costs associated with new
pollution fees.
25 Although new car owners may only own their new
vehicle for several years, when re-sold as used, these
vehicles may persist in the fleet for decades.
26 See https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/
attach/2019/06/Inequitable-Exposure-to-Vehicle-Pollution-
NY.pdf .
27 Perera FP. 2017. Multiple threats to child health from
fossil fuel combustion: impacts of air pollution and climate
change. Environ Health Perspect 125:141–148; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP299.
28 See https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/ldv_pilots/
efmp_plus_up_faq.pdf.
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
Synapse Energy Economics
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. is a research and con-
sulting firm specializing in energy, economic, and envi-
ronmental topics. Since its inception in 1996, Synapse
has grown to become a leader in providing rigorous
analysis of the electric power sector for public interest
and governmental clients. Synapse’s staff includes ex-
perts on a variety of energy and environmental eco-
nomics, including resource planning, electricity dis-
patch and economic modeling, energy efficiency, re-
newable energy, and sustainable transportation.
For more information, contact:
Pat Knight | pknight@synapse-energy.com | 617-453-7051
Jason Frost | jfrost@synapse-energy.com | 617-453-7043
Sierra Club
The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential
grassroots environmental organization, with more than
3.5 million members and supporters. In addition to pro-
tecting every person's right to get outdoors and access
the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to
promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our
communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our re-
maining wild places through grassroots activism, public
education, lobbying, and legal action.
For more information, contact:
Allison Considine, NY Campaign Representative, Sierra Club
allison.considine@sierraclub.org | 585-730-2127
20
APPENDIX About MA3T

MA3T was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The following appendix provides greater detail on the (ORNL) and most recently updated in April 2019. It is
methodology and inputs used to conduct the analysis available for free download (see https://teem.ornl.gov/
described in Transforming Transportation in New York: ma3t.shtml). MA3T is a consumer adoption model, which
Roadmaps to a 2035 Transportation Climate Target. means that it predicts the types of LDVs customers are
likely to purchase based on a set of inputs, including
Methodology Detail vehicle price, fuel prices, operating and maintenance
costs, financial incentives, the convenience of charging,
We performed our analysis using two models: the Market
and vehicle range. The assumptions address consumer
Acceptance of Advanced Automotive Technologies
characteristics, including sensitivity to price, range
(MA3T) model and the Electric Vehicle Regional Emissions
anxiety, and preference for new technologies. MA3T
and Demand Impacts (EV-REDI) model. We used MA3T to
contains segmented data for all 50 states and Washington
assess the annual impacts of technology changes and
D.C.; it also contains dozens of vehicle segments for
transportation sector policies on the share of EVs relative
different types of LDVs and powertrains.
to total LDVs and EV-REDI to translate these share-of-
sales into vehicles on the road, CO2 emissions, and other ORNL’s 2019 update to MA3T contains the latest
outputs (see Figure 8). information on fuel prices, consumer preferences, and
historical EV sales. Synapse calibrated nationwide sales of
Figure 7. Modeling methodology schematic EVs in the Business-as-Usual scenario in MA3T to the 2018
Bloomberg New Energy Finance EV Outlook projection
Inputs • Gas and • Consumer (see https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/).
electricity prices preferences
• Vehicle and
• O&M costs (vehicle type,
battery prices About EV-REDI
• EV rebates range anxiety,
• Charging
• Vehicle preference for
accessibility EV-REDI was developed by Synapse and deployed in
efficiencies new tech, etc.)
September 2018 (see https://www.synapse-energy.com/
tools/ev-redi). EV-REDI is a stock turnover and scenario
analysis model. It combines a user-specified trajectory of
MA3T EV sales and combines this with state-specific data
(Developed by Oak Ridge including total vehicles on the road, vehicle lifetime
National Laboratory) distributions, VMT, fuel efficiencies, and emissions rates.
Using this information, EV-REDI calculates and reports
EV market share
estimates of future number of EVs on the road, avoided
emissions, increased level of electricity consumption, and
EV-REDI other outputs.
(Developed by Synapse)
Modeling caveats

This analysis can be thought of as a “what if” analysis: it

• Gasoline consumption posits a set of policies that are likely to encourage growth
Outputs
• Electricity sales impacts in EV sales share and examines the impacts on the
• EV sales
• Criteria pollutant
• EV stock number of vehicles on the road, reduced emissions, and
emissions
• CO2 emissions other outputs. It is not an examination of the only
pathways to decarbonization or a least-cost pathway. As

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 21

with all models that examine different potential futures,
its projections are likely most accurate for near-term
years, with projections becoming more uncertain for
years far into the future.
MA3T is a consumer adoption model for LDVs only; it
does not consider impacts on medium-duty vehicles,
heavy-duty vehicles, or buses. To model the impact of
the “slow” trajectory, non-LDV vehicles follow an EV
adoption curve that is the same as the LDV trajectory but
with a 10-year lag (see Table 5 for more detail). These
trajectories are linked to the LDV trajectory estimated
under each modeled scenario, and thus are different
across scenarios.
Table 5. Electrification trajectories for non-LDVs

these vehicles on tailpipe emissions, Synapse developed a Assumed electrification

Vehicle category
set of three categories of sales adoption: (1) under the trajectory
“fast” trajectory, EV adoption increases to 100% of new Buses
non-LDV vehicle sales in 2025; (2) under the “medium” Total Private
trajectory, non-LDV vehicles follow an EV adoption curve Private Buses slow
that lags 4 years behind the LDV trajectory; and (3) under Total Public
BAU: medium,
Municipally-owned buses
Policy cases: fast
Vehicle classifications
BAU: medium,
Other gov't-owned buses
A light-duty vehicle or LDV is any vehicle that weighs Policy cases: fast
less than 10,000 lbs. Broadly speaking, this includes Medium-duty vehicles
any passenger car or truck that might be purchased Total Private
for daily personal use. This category includes SUVs, Privately-owned delivery trucks medium
small and medium pickup trucks, as well as sedans Privately-owned tractors slow
and other passenger cars. Privately-owned "utility" vehicles
medium
(Ford F-350 or larger)
Other motor vehicles are not so consistently catego-
Privately-owned tow trucks slow
rized. For the purposes of this analysis, medium-duty
Other privately-owned MDVs slow
vehicles are vehicles that weigh more than 10,000 lbs
Total Public
but less than 26,000 lbs. This category includes larger
Municipally-owned "utility" vehicles medium
pickup trucks, work vans, tractors, and delivery vehi-
Other gov't-owned MDVs slow
cles. Heavy-duty vehicles are any vehicle weighing
more than 26,000 lbs. For the purposes of this analy- Heavy-duty vehicles (single)
sis, this category includes three subcategories: buses, Total Private
heavy-duty (single) vehicles, and heavy-duty Private dump trucks slow
(combination) vehicles. Everyday examples of heavy- Private flatbed trucks slow
duty (single) vehicles are dump trucks, flatbed trucks, Private tank trucks slow
and garbage or refuse trucks; these consist of “single” Other privately-owned single HDVs slow
integrated cab and cargo components. Total Public
Municipally-owned dump trucks medium
Conversely, heavy-duty (combination) vehicles may Other gov't-owned vehicles slow
have their cab and cargo components detached. This Heavy-duty vehicles (combination)
category largely consists of tractor trailer or semi ve- Total Private
hicles. The heavy-duty (combination) vehicles have
Privately-owned semi slow
large overlap with long-haul deliveries, whereas short-
RVs slow
haul deliveries are split between the medium-duty and
Other privately-owned vehicles slow
heavy-duty (single) categories.
Total Public
Other gov't-owned vehicles slow

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 22

VMT Reductions Figure 8. Estimated share of motor vehicle CO2
emissions and population by region
New York’s network of densely-populated, transit-
oriented communities—both in the New York City metro 100%
and Upstate—offers it an unparalleled opportunity to
90%
reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Figure 9 Upstate &
80% 42% Western NY
demonstrates how densely-populated counties have
70% 60%
relatively low CO2 emissions despite having large
populations. In particular, New York City features 43% of 60%
the state’s population, but encompasses just one-fifth of 50% 15% Long Island
motor vehicle-based CO2 emissions. While VMT 40%
reductions may be challenging to achieve in certain 30% 21%
New York
situations, studies in the literature suggest that a 20% 43% CIty
combined set of policies that encourage pedestrian and
10% 19%
biking infrastructure, public transportation, and transit-
0%
oriented development can achieve VMT reductions on the
CO2 emissions Population
order of 5% per decade (see Table 6).

Table 6. Impact of VMT reductions in the literature

Reference Selected findings
Smart Growth Pedestrian and bike friendly
America, streets can reduce VMT by 5-
Driving Down 10%, improved transit frequency
VMT (2016) and new corridors can reduce
VMT by 1-2%, and road-pricing
can achieve 1-3% VMT
reductions.
Bento, The elasticity of VMT was found
Cropper, to be -0.18 with respect to
Mobarak, and population centrality, -0.04 with CAFE Standards
Vinha (2003 & respect to supply of rail transit,
2005) and 0.09 with respect to Efficiency standards have played an important role in
distance to nearest transit stop. increasing average fleet fuel efficiency in the U.S. Looking
ahead, there is room for improvement in ICE fuel
Salon, Boarnet, VMT elasticities were found to efficiency. However, the much greater efficiency of EVs
and be as large as -0.2 with respect
(measured in miles per gallon equivalent) has the
Mokhtarian to changes in regional and local
potential to increase fleet average fuel efficiency without
(2014) jobs access and gasoline price.
improving ICE efficiency, depending on how EVs are
Transportation Increasing all built environment incorporated into fleet average fuel economy calculations.
Research variables (such as density and This means that future fuel economy standards as
Board, Driving land use diversity) by 100% was currently written may be met by simply increasing the
and the Built estimated to reduce VMT by 13-
number of EVs sold instead of improving ICE efficiency. As
Environment 25%.
the Trump administration seeks to repeal Obama-era fuel
(2009)
efficiency standards and revoke California’s right to set its

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 23

own efficiency standards, there is also a lot of uncertainty
about how stringent fuel efficiency standards will be in
the coming years.

For these reasons, the fuel efficiency improvement

trajectory used in this report assumes a slow rate of
improvement that might occur under the Trump
administration’s proposed CAFE standard rollbacks. There
is considerable uncertainty about whether New York’s
standards, which are tied to California’s, will ultimately
change. As a sensitivity, we evaluated the impact of a
more quickly improving fuel trajectory on the BAU,
specifically one based on the EIA’s projection of how
quickly fuel efficiency will improve if today’s CAFE
standards remain in effect.

In this sensitivity, motor vehicles emit 32 million metric

tons (MMT) CO2 in 2035, compared to 37 MMT CO2
emitted in 2035 in the BAU scenario. The reduction in
emissions can be attributed to two factors. With greater
improvements in fuel efficiency, we project ICE costs to
increase, which leads to more EV sales. Additionally,
emissions are lower due to the increased fuel efficiency of
the remaining ICE vehicles. This sensitivity serves as a
lower bound on CO2 emissions in a business-as-usual
scenario.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 24